3 ms·

> It doesn't matter how meritorious you are -- if you don't have ownership you get nothing. Tell that to the recent graduate getting multi hundred of thousand

by nickpp 5y ago

> It doesn't matter how meritorious you are -- if you don't have ownership you get nothing. Tell that to the recent graduate getting multi hundred of thousand offers (with stock!) from FAANG companies. Tell that to the entrepreneur owning 100% of his brand new company after filling a few forms and paying a small fee. Because that new company is worth exactly 0. Ownership by itself gets you nothing. Making that property worth something is everything. And that’s why self made billionaires deserve their rewards. > That people fall for the propaganda It is funny to pretend to care about a category of people but then refuse them the right to think for themselves. Classical leftist: "We need to save the poor! From themselves…"

ModernMech 5y ago
> Tell that to the recent graduate getting multi hundred of thousand offers (with stock!) from FAANG companies. Compensation for labor is not exclusive to a capitalist system. You can receive compensation for labor irrespective of the ownership structure of a corporation. But since you've brought stock into it, that would prove my point -- it doesn't matter how meritorious the individual employee is, their total reward is based on their ownership. It may be that the corporation decides to give the employee more stock if they demonstrate merit, but that just reinforces the point that ownership is the fundamental determiner of compensation. > Tell that to the entrepreneur owning 100% of his brand new company after filling a few forms and paying a small fee. Because that new company is worth exactly 0. Okay, but under a capitalist system if that company grows the owner gets 100% of the gains. If someone else (employees) help the owner grow the company, they don't share in that at all (beyond the compensation they received for their labor). > Making that property worth something is everything. And that’s why self made billionaires deserve their rewards. I've yet to see an example of a self-made billionaire, sorry. Behind every billionaire is a legion of employees doing the actual value creation. And that's why no one deserves a billion dollars. > It is funny to pretend to care about a category of people but then refuse them the right to think for themselves. Classical leftist: "We need to save the poor! From themselves…" You don't know anything about me. Kindly keep your personal jabs to yourself.
- nickpp 5y ago
  In capitalism ownership also extremely easy to acquire and readily offered as a great motivator. > a legion of employees In a newly created company? With what money?!
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > In capitalism ownership also extremely easy to acquire and readily offered as a great motivator. The 1% own 80% of all stocks, so I disagree ownership is extremely easy to acquire. Acquiring ownership of valuable assets requires capital, and capitalists own most of that. > In a newly created company? With what money?! I said behind every billionaire, not a newly created company. i.e. there's no such thing as a self-made billionaire. I'd love to see an example, but so far no one has been able to show me one. This is the crux of our differing point of view I think. You seem to think a billionaire built their business by themselves (self made) and therefore deserve to be billionaires due to their extraordinary merit. I believe that no one has so much merit, and the success of large businesses is more due to the value created by employees. I can understand for entrepreneurs, that the first narrative is more appealing. But even if I were to agree with you that capitalism is a system that awards compensation proportional to merit of businesses (which I don't), it still doesn't follow that a founders are reaping rewards proportional to their merit; when a business grows in value, that value is allocated to shareholders according to their ownership stake, not their individual merit.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > the success of large businesses is more due to the value created by employees. The obvious example is Steve Jobs. He turned around two floundering companies - Apple and Pixar - into immensely valuable companies, without changing the employees. You might argue that one was luck, but two? One right after the other? and the two were totally different businesses? You've got a lot of 'splaining to do about that. See "The Making of Steve Jobs". https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Steve-Jobs-Evolution-Visionary/dp/0385347421 https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Steve-Jobs-Evolution-Visiona... In fact, read any history book that focuses on one person or business, and find one that became a billionaire by blundering about. As for them not being self-made, why didn't their makers, if they were so smart and endowed with resources, become billionaires? Are they so generous?

by nickpp 5y ago

ModernMech 5y ago

> Tell that to the recent graduate getting multi hundred of thousand offers (with stock!) from FAANG companies. Compensation for labor is not exclusive to a capitalist system. You can receive compensation for labor irrespective of the ownership structure of a corporation. But since you've brought stock into it, that would prove my point -- it doesn't matter how meritorious the individual employee is, their total reward is based on their ownership. It may be that the corporation decides to give the employee more stock if they demonstrate merit, but that just reinforces the point that ownership is the fundamental determiner of compensation. > Tell that to the entrepreneur owning 100% of his brand new company after filling a few forms and paying a small fee. Because that new company is worth exactly 0. Okay, but under a capitalist system if that company grows the owner gets 100% of the gains. If someone else (employees) help the owner grow the company, they don't share in that at all (beyond the compensation they received for their labor). > Making that property worth something is everything. And that’s why self made billionaires deserve their rewards. I've yet to see an example of a self-made billionaire, sorry. Behind every billionaire is a legion of employees doing the actual value creation. And that's why no one deserves a billion dollars. > It is funny to pretend to care about a category of people but then refuse them the right to think for themselves. Classical leftist: "We need to save the poor! From themselves…" You don't know anything about me. Kindly keep your personal jabs to yourself.

nickpp 5y ago
In capitalism ownership also extremely easy to acquire and readily offered as a great motivator. > a legion of employees In a newly created company? With what money?!
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > In capitalism ownership also extremely easy to acquire and readily offered as a great motivator. The 1% own 80% of all stocks, so I disagree ownership is extremely easy to acquire. Acquiring ownership of valuable assets requires capital, and capitalists own most of that. > In a newly created company? With what money?! I said behind every billionaire, not a newly created company. i.e. there's no such thing as a self-made billionaire. I'd love to see an example, but so far no one has been able to show me one. This is the crux of our differing point of view I think. You seem to think a billionaire built their business by themselves (self made) and therefore deserve to be billionaires due to their extraordinary merit. I believe that no one has so much merit, and the success of large businesses is more due to the value created by employees. I can understand for entrepreneurs, that the first narrative is more appealing. But even if I were to agree with you that capitalism is a system that awards compensation proportional to merit of businesses (which I don't), it still doesn't follow that a founders are reaping rewards proportional to their merit; when a business grows in value, that value is allocated to shareholders according to their ownership stake, not their individual merit.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > the success of large businesses is more due to the value created by employees. The obvious example is Steve Jobs. He turned around two floundering companies - Apple and Pixar - into immensely valuable companies, without changing the employees. You might argue that one was luck, but two? One right after the other? and the two were totally different businesses? You've got a lot of 'splaining to do about that. See "The Making of Steve Jobs". https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Steve-Jobs-Evolution-Visionary/dp/0385347421 https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Steve-Jobs-Evolution-Visiona... In fact, read any history book that focuses on one person or business, and find one that became a billionaire by blundering about. As for them not being self-made, why didn't their makers, if they were so smart and endowed with resources, become billionaires? Are they so generous?